Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:16 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:What exactly does this..." to have our genes thrown into a direction that negates that survival trait" mean? I was not aware of any genetic reason for homosexuality had been evidenced. Indeed all the scientific research shows it to be a perfectly normal variation of adult heterosexual desires.

What I am saying is that if there is only one man and one woman left, they had better not be gay or unable to get past their preference and reproduce or mankind would go extinct.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A bit of a straw man premise since we're not down to one "breeding" pair, and even if we were we'd have larger concerns genetically speaking. Of course gay couples can still procreate and all the evidence shows they have the desire to raise children, so again your claim seems erroneous even as a hypothetical example.

If it is not our genes that decide which sexuality we have, then what does?
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I don't know if either they do or do not. However this question strikes me as argumentum ignorantiam.

It is all metal for sure but that mental is decided by our genes.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not sure this is true, but since you've offered no evidence then it's all moot anyway.

Regards
DL

The link claimed certain conclusions might be valid if genetic evidence were available, and from a test group of less than a 100 people. I'm not a scientist but even I can see this is not much more than speculative at the moment.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:00 pm

snowyflake wrote:I can't agree with your disagreement on scientific reasons which includes epigenetics, biology, genetics, biochemistry, neurology, psychology and evolutionary theory. Trying to simplify a complex situation down to its 'logical' assumptions seems a bit arrogant to my mind. Instead of naming something as abnormal because you don't 'agree' with it discounts many possible natural explanations for it.

It also surprises me coming from you, Greatest who I thought would have been more than willing to explore the possibilities but your post doesn't quite sound so tolerant. Why is that?

Because you want to read in something that is not there.

I was explaining a physical limitation placed on some of us by nature.

I have nothing against consenting adults doing whatever they like in the bedrooms of the nation. I am far from anti-gay.

As a Universalist by nature and by my choice of religions, I cannot be against them unless given a just moral cause.

If you are concerned with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms then shame on you and other voyeurs who cannot mind their own private business.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:07 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:The link claimed certain conclusions might be valid if genetic evidence were available, and from a test group of less than a 100 people. I'm not a scientist but even I can see this is not much more than speculative at the moment.

Our genes control everything about us, mental and physical. I think I can say that without exceptions.

If you wish to believe that, one aspect only, our sexual preference, is controlled by something other than our genes then name it and we can discuss it. Science, I think, has clearly shown that our sexual preferences are controlled by nature and not nurture.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:58 pm

Greatest I am wrote: Our genes control everything about us, mental and physical. I think I can say that without exceptions.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You can say that of course, but I'm not sure it's correct. That aside if you're claiming that homosexuality has a genetic cause then it's for you to evidence it, properly. Again the very fact we've not heard this from science, and the kind of impact such a discovery would cause tend to indicate your making a claim that isn't true. There as certainly no genetic evidence in that article, just speculation.

If you wish to believe that, one aspect only, our sexual preference, is controlled by something other than our genes
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Believe? Nice try but it's YOUR claim and it's for you to evidence it, I have no need to believe anything here, just point out you've made a bare claim.

then name it and we can discuss it. Science, I think, has clearly shown that our sexual preferences are controlled by nature and not nurture.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Has it? Again the claim is yours so link the peer reviewed publication that evidences this. Pretty sure that I've not made a claim either way, have I?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:14 pm

You hint that I am not correct. That aside.

I do not really care about the gay issue now that society has stopped discriminating against them without a just cause. I speak to the gay issue from a moral POV and do not really care how it comes to be.

Those who are interested in the DNA or nature verses nurture argument can do their own research and reading.

I have no interest in what people do with their junk as long as I am not involved.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:31 pm

I hinted at nothing, I stated plainly that your claim was un-evidenced, which of course it was, and that the article you linked merely speculated about a genetic cause, and then speculated about conclusions that were not evidenced by the research. Though to be fair they did make it clear they were only speculating, starting the claim with the word "if" and qualifying it with the word "might". You then tried to reverse the burden of proof by asking me to prove the opposite of your claim even though I'd not claimed that nurture and not nature was responsible for homosexuality. A little disingenuous to be honest.

Unfortunately even our society has not stopped discriminating against gay people at all, have you not read Polyglide's posts as an example. Nor am I the one who raised this issue in this thread to be fair, though it does have a bearing on your question in the title of course, as both biblical and Koran texts condemn homosexuality. Other societies have enacted laws to persecute gay people, Russia and some African states, and of course they are persecuted in the middle east, and always with religious beliefs cited as justification.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:57 pm

All true but I think we in the West can be a better example now that we have begun to walk our equality talk.

Religions have always been retarded when it comes to gays and it is mostly the miss-representation of their theologies that cause it.

I do not think the trend to less hate can be stopped and the religions that do not get with that agenda will end faster than the more progressive ones.

Religions wish to survive and if they have to become moral to do so, they will.

The rest of us just have to keep pointing out their faults.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:02 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Religions have always been retarded when it comes to gays and it is mostly the miss-representation of their theologies that cause it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:13)

Not sure how that can be misrepresented to be honest.

I do not think the trend to less hate can be stopped and the religions that do not get with that agenda will end faster than the more progressive ones.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Africa: Amnesty International Warns of a Rise in Homophobia in Africa
Link http://allafrica.com/stories/201306250471.html

Russian anti-gay law prompts rise in homophobic violence.
Link http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/01/russia-rise-homophobic-violence

78 countries where homosexuality is illegal
Link http://76crimes.com/76-countries-where-homosexuality-is-illegal/

Religions wish to survive and if they have to become moral to do so, they will.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-27838034
US evangelical Christians accused of promoting homophobia in Africa
Link http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/24/evangelical-christians-homophobia-africa

Jawad worked in sales in Syria before the war began. When his father found out he was gay, he had him arrested.

After five years of hard labour, he emerged a broken man, only to find his country at war.
Link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29628281

The rest of us just have to keep pointing out their faults.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I couldn't agree more.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 9:56 pm

Thanks for the information.

I was aware of some but not all of it.

I have noted that since the West is not as receptive to the hate being sold by Christianity, that some Christian churches are now focussing their hate in the East and Africa.

I wish there was a God to do unto those Christian bastards.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:03 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Because you want to read in something that is not there.

I was explaining a physical limitation placed on some of us by nature.

I have nothing against consenting adults doing whatever they like in the bedrooms of the nation. I am far from anti-gay.

As a Universalist by nature and by my choice of religions, I cannot be against them unless given a just moral cause.

If you are concerned with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms then shame on you and other voyeurs who cannot mind their own private business.

Regards
DL

You disagreed on "logical" grounds and then went on to reply to Doc that it was all down to genetics that someone is gay or not. What is evolution about if not genetics amongst other things? Nature has her own methods of population control and just because you may not understand the mechanism I don't think you should have dismissed it out of hand. The rest of your post is too childish to comment on and I think you knew that when you posted it. It's a bit beneath you.

by Greatest I am Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:11 pm

Only to those who do not care that they do not know to mind their own business.

A famous Canadian, Pierre Trudeau, said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of the nation.

If his statement was not beneath him and the intelligentsia of the day, mine should not be though of that way here.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:05 am

I am well aware of Pierre Trudeau's statement and couldn't agree with him more if I tried. Please stop insinuating that I care at all what people get up to in the bedroom because I don't and that wasn't the discussion or the implication. Talk about getting the wrong end of the stick and taking the discussion in a direction it wasn't going in. You took it there and made an inference which isn't true.

Go back to the science and the logic of the discussion. Both of which you missed by a country mile.

by Greatest I am Mon Mar 02, 2015 2:48 pm

snowyflake wrote:Go back to the science and the logic of the discussion. Both of which you missed by a country mile.

Go where you will. My focus is the morality of the issue.

Regards
DL

by polyglide Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:50 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
You must first understand the dictionaries definition of homophobia.

Hatred of homosexuals.

I take exception to being called someone who hates anything.

As I have said previously, I do not agree with it, you will find the vast majority in the world do not agree with it, the countries that accept it, have not been consulted the on the matter,
the politicians have done so because many of them are themselves homosexuals, along with being many other things.

There is no logical way in which it can be called normal behaviour, if you started banging your head in the bedroom agianst the bed end, would that be normal?.

It is purely and simply a way of obtaining self gratification and nothing more.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:53 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Go back to the science and the logic of the discussion. Both of which you missed by a country mile.

Go where you will. My focus is the morality of the issue.

Regards
DL

Does your morality include lying?

by snowyflake Mon Mar 02, 2015 6:59 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You must first understand the dictionaries definition of homophobia.

Hatred of homosexuals.

I take exception to being called someone who hates anything.

As I have said previously, I do not agree with it, you will find the vast majority in the world do not agree with it, the countries that accept it, have not been consulted the on the matter,
the politicians have done so because many of them are themselves homosexuals, along with being many other things.

There is no logical way in which it can be called normal behaviour, if you started banging your head in the bedroom agianst the bed end, would that be normal?.

It is purely and simply a way of obtaining self gratification and nothing more.

Actually, if you're breaking down the word, a phobia is actually a fear of something. And I think that's probably closer to the truth with many men who spout homophobic rhetoric. The research indicates that the intense dislike of homosexuals or homosexuality may be down to their own fear that they are one.

Banging your head against a bed end is not normal behaviour. Mostly because you are self harming and likely to do some damage. Having sex with someone of the same sex is a variation of normal sexual behaviour, is not harmful and doesn't do any damage. Just because you don't like it or your god doesn't like it doesn't mean it's not normal. Who decides what is normal? If you were a chronic masturbater would you consider that normal or abnormal behaviour? If it wasn't doing you or anyone else any harm and it wasn't affecting your life in any adverse way, what does it matter? Who cares?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You must first understand the dictionaries definition of homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals. I take exception to being called someone who hates anything. As I have said previously, I do not agree with it,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I suggest you get a real dictionary, like the Oxford English dictionary, which defines Homophobia as follows:

Noun

Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

You have posted your dislike and prejudice multiple times, and have done so here again.

you will find the vast majority in the world do not agree with it,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I have warned you about bare claims, so I'll respond with "no they don't"

the countries that accept it, have not been consulted the on the matter,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes they have (see how this works?)

the politicians have done so because many of them are themselves homosexuals,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No they're not.

There is no logical way in which it can be called normal behaviour,
Drr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yes there is, and the entire scientific and medical world says so. Your prejudice is not evidence.

if you started banging your head in the bedroom agianst the bed end, would that be normal?.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Your point being?

It is purely and simply a way of obtaining self gratification and nothing more.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it's not, you're simply sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting your prejudices repeatedly. As I told you gay couples love each other the same as straight couples, they often raise children as well.Your talking nonsense.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 02, 2015 8:39 pm

polyglide wrote: I do not agree with it, you will find the vast majority in the world do not agree with it, the politicians have done so because many of them are themselves homosexuals. There is no logical way in which it can be called normal behaviour.

"Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioural and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexual orientation."

"Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study homosexuality as a discrete phenomenon. Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality."

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975. Thereafter other major mental health organizations followed and it was finally declassified by the World Health Organization in 1990. Consequently, while some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviours are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association."

You're talking complete nonsense, and all the evidence refutes your prejudices. Being gay is not an abnormality, it is not unnatural, and is in fact a perfectly normal natural variation of human sexuality.

by Greatest I am Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:35 pm

snowyflake wrote:Does your morality include lying?

Such as?

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:08 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Does your morality include lying?

Such as?

Regards
DL

Because you want to read in something that is not there.

I was explaining a physical limitation placed on some of us by nature.

I have nothing against consenting adults doing whatever they like in the bedrooms of the nation. I am far from anti-gay.

As a Universalist by nature and by my choice of religions, I cannot be against them unless given a just moral cause.

If you are concerned with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms then shame on you and other voyeurs who cannot mind their own private business.

That is a falsehood which you know to be false yet you said it anyway.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:10 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, You must first understand the dictionaries definition of homophobia. Hatred of homosexuals.

It appears you're still entirely unaware of the hilarity of you constantly making pompous and erroneous claims about other posters inability to properly define words whilst being wrong in almost every instance, and never once being able to simply search online for the correct definition yourself and paste it in your posts. As I and others have done in a forlorn hope of educating you on simple word definitions.

Homophobia does not necessarily require hatred, just an aversion to, or prejudice against gay people. As I have just illustrated by simply searching online for the OED definition of homophobia which I posted above. Just Google OED definition of homophobia, a child could do it, literally. The hilarity of your use of capitals in the middle of a sentence isn't quite sinking in either I see. Or your constant and annoying use of double line breaks at the end of virtually every sentence.

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:21 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Does your morality include lying?

Such as?

Regards
DL

Because you want to read in something that is not there.

I was explaining a physical limitation placed on some of us by nature.

I have nothing against consenting adults doing whatever they like in the bedrooms of the nation. I am far from anti-gay.

As a Universalist by nature and by my choice of religions, I cannot be against them unless given a just moral cause.

If you are concerned with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms then shame on you and other voyeurs who cannot mind their own private business.

That is a falsehood which you know to be false yet you said it anyway.

Rather vague after calling someone a liar.

Which part is the lie?

Be exact please because you are bearing false witness.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:55 pm

Greatest I am wrote: Rather vague after calling someone a liar. Which part is the lie? Be exact please because you are bearing false witness.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I suspect it was this line that she is referring to...

GIA wrote: "If you are concerned with what consenting adults do in their bedrooms then shame on you and other voyeurs who cannot mind their own private business."

in response to Snowyflake's post below. As it implies she harbours prejudice against people based on their sexuality. Which I have to admit is news to me as I have never ever seen her post anything to suggest this is the case, and her post below doesn't make any such claim.

snowyflake wrote:I can't agree with your disagreement on scientific reasons which includes epigenetics, biology, genetics, biochemistry, neurology, psychology and evolutionary theory. Trying to simplify a complex situation down to its 'logical' assumptions seems a bit arrogant to my mind. Instead of naming something as abnormal because you don't 'agree' with it discounts many possible natural explanations for it.

It also surprises me coming from you, Greatest who I thought would have been more than willing to explore the possibilities but your post doesn't quite sound so tolerant. Why is that?

by Greatest I am Wed Mar 04, 2015 7:56 pm

Possibly.

More and more, science is finding that we are products of our genes and DNA.

Calling gays abnormal is like calling someone whose DNA gave him a heart murmur abnormal.

Both conditions are natural even if not particularly desirable, in the case of gays, for a species that has evolved to have the two genders get together to reproduce.

There may come a time when some super bug develops to make man extinct and the survival solution may well come from a gay DNA or some other minority condition within the general population and that is why we should register and keep all genetic bloodlines if possible.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 04, 2015 8:23 pm

Most gay people tend not to have children, for obvious reasons, now since you're determined to speculate without proper evidence here, I'd speculate that since genes are inherited then this fact doesn't appear to support your premise about homosexuality being genetic. So in the absence of any real evidence perhaps it's best not to speculate. I'm not sure what you mean by "Both conditions are natural even if not particularly desirable, in the case of gays," but all the research shows that being gay is not a condition, and calling being gay undesirable is frankly a little offensive. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that homosexuality has developed as some sort of evolutionary mechanism to limit conflict for mates in populations that have unequal gender populations.

by polyglide Fri Mar 06, 2015 11:32 am

Dr.Sheldon,
I have a a little catching up to do, having been banned for calling a spade a spade.

Firstly, I have no grouse with Gay people, I do not agree with homosexuality but it is a fact of life and those who are and those who are not exist and that is a fact.

There are not only homosexuals who deviate from what is accepted as the use for which anything is created, humans do it all the time in thousands of instances for the benifit of mankind.

However, to attempt to deny what it is, is, ignoble, inane and sardonic.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:44 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr.Sheldon,
I have a a little catching up to do, having been banned for calling a spade a spade.

Firstly, I have no grouse with Gay people, I do not agree with homosexuality but it is a fact of life and those who are and those who are not exist and that is a fact.

There are not only homosexuals who deviate from what is accepted as the use for which anything is created, humans do it all the time in thousands of instances for the benifit of mankind.

However, to attempt to deny what it is, is, ignoble, inane and sardonic.

No one needs to deny it as it demonstrably wrong. Just go back and read the evidence, and the references to all the major world's medical and scientific organisations. Just endlessly repeating your erroneous claim without evidence is not debate, it's not discussion, it's not even rational as the result will be the same every time. All your bare claims are worthless as previously stated, see Hitchen's Razor.

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Any chance you're actually going to answer any of the questions that have been out to you now?

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:04 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Most gay people tend not to have children, for obvious reasons, now since you're determined to speculate without proper evidence here, I'd speculate that since genes are inherited then this fact doesn't appear to support your premise about homosexuality being genetic. So in the absence of any real evidence perhaps it's best not to speculate. I'm not sure what you mean by "Both conditions are natural even if not particularly desirable, in the case of gays," but all the research shows that being gay is not a condition, and calling being gay undesirable is frankly a little offensive. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that homosexuality has developed as some sort of evolutionary mechanism to limit conflict for mates in populations that have unequal gender populations.

Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct. That is why being gay, like having a heart problem is not particularly desirable. As to gays coming from the general population, sure. Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down or BNA damage happens in the womb. There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:12 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr.Sheldon,
I have a a little catching up to do, having been banned for calling a spade a spade.

Firstly, I have no grouse with Gay people, I do not agree with homosexuality

Contradict much, bigot?

I, being French, may not quite recognize your use of the word "grouse", and if wrong, I will be quick to apologise for my use of bigot, but just what kind of restrictions would you put on gays if you had your way?

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:55 pm

Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct.

Regards
DL[/quote]

Are you seeing the flaw in your spurious premise yet?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:01 pm

GIA wrote:That is why being gay, like having a heart problem is not particularly desirable.

Once again, since you seem to be ignoring the fact, being gay is not a condition, and does no harm, unlike a heart CONDITION, which of course does. Heart conditions may also be hereditary, and despite it being spelled out you seem to also be ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that homosexuality is hereditary. In fact it should be fairly obvious, as I already pointed out, that since the vast majority of gay people don't procreate and the evidence shows their numbers remain a fairly constant percentage of the population then this does seem to refute your un-evidenced claim that homosexuality is hereditary.

I really can't put this any simpler, but if they don't have children then how can they pass on what you have claimed is a "gay gene"? If they do have children then your premise folds in on itself as being gay would demonstrably not be the threat to the human population you're trying to claim. Either way your argument is defeating itself....

headbang

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:10 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Are you seeing the flaw in your spurious premise yet? [/quote]

No. I see a true and irrefutable statement. That is why you did not refute what I said. I try to be careful in how I express myself.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:15 pm

GIA wrote:There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.
Regards
DL

This is in fact a well known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:16 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
GIA wrote:That is why being gay, like having a heart problem is not particularly desirable.

Once again, since you seem to be ignoring the fact, being gay is not a condition, and does no harm, unlike a heart CONDITION, which of course does. Heart conditions may also be hereditary, and despite it being spelled out you seem to also be ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that homosexuality is hereditary. In fact it should be fairly obvious, as I already pointed out, that since the vast majority of gay people don't procreate and the evidence shows their numbers remain a fairly constant percentage of the population then this does seem to refute your un-evidenced claim that homosexuality is hereditary.

I really can't put this any simpler, but if they don't have children then how can they pass on what you have claimed is a "gay gene"? If they do have children then your premise folds in on itself as being gay would demonstrably not be the threat to the human population you're trying to claim. Either way your argument is defeating itself....

It does no harm as a minority condition but if it ever became the majority we might go extinct.

Since it does not do any harm at these levels, that is why we should not discriminate against it.

If it ever went to a majority position then survival of humanity might push us to try harder to find a cure for the condition and that would be at the DNA level.

You seem to be trying to get me to say that being gay is good and I cannot say that it is as compared to being straight.

Think that way if you like but wanting grand children, I am pleased that none of my boys are gay. If they were, it would not effect my love for them.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:22 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Are you seeing the flaw in your spurious premise yet?

GIA wrote:No. I see a true and irrefutable statement. That is why you did not refute what I said. I try to be careful in how I express myself.
Regards
DL

You are making an assertion based on an IF, and without any evidence. If you think that's a carefully worded logical argument then crack on, it isn't though. Let's try bullet points.

1. If it's hereditary and the people who possess it don't have children as you've claimed how is it passed on?
2. If inheriting the gene only happens by having children, then how does the gene suddenly become a threat to procreation?

This really is a very silly premise, and being gay is no more undesirable than having blue eyes or ginger hair. The problems most gay people have is down to the prejudice of others, and the persecution they experience. If they are treated as equals, as they should be, then all the evidence suggests they will lead the same decent productive lives that heterosexuals do.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:28 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.

Regards
DL

This is in fact a well known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance[/quote]

Pfft. Deflection.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:37 pm

Greatest I am wrote:It does no harm as a minority condition but if it ever became the majority we might go extinct. You seem to be trying to get me to say that being gay is good and I cannot say that it is as compared to being straight.
Regards
DL

How would it become a majority condition exactly? You mean if more of the people you claim inherited this "condition" passed it on by having children then it would become a threat to the population because......the "condition" stops them having children? It's an absurd premise. If they are passing it on then they are having children, so how is that a threat to the population? The fact they don't have children proves it's unlikely to hereditary in the way you're suggesting. It's either or, you can't have it both ways, either being gay prohibits having children in which case your hereditary gene theory seems unlikely, or they are having children and passing on this "gene" in which case being gay would demonstrably not be a threat to the population. Which is it?

You still have no evidence that homosexuality is genetic,research however has produced evidence that it is an evolutionary mechanism to reduce conflicts for mates in populations where one gender outnumbers the other.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything, merely hoping you'll grasp that your claim is demonstrably wrong.

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:39 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Not reproducing and maintaining the population, if being gay was widespread, would definitely be an unwelcomed condition as then we would go extinct.

Regards
DL

Are you seeing the flaw in your spurious premise yet?

No. I see a true and irrefutable statement. That is why you did not refute what I said. I try to be careful in how I express myself.

Regards
DL

You are making an assertion based on an IF, and without any evidence. If you think that's a carefully worded logical argument then crack on, it isn't though. Let''s try bullet points.

1. If it's hereditary and the people who possess it don't have children as you've claimed how is it passed on?
2. If inheriting the gene only happens by having children, then how does the gene suddenly become a threat to procreation?

This really is a very silly premise, and being gay is no more undesirable than having blue eyes or ginger hair. The problems most gay people have is down to the prejudice of others, and the persecution they experience. If they are treated as equals, as they should be, then all the evidence suggests they will lead the same decent productive lives that heterosexuals do. [/quote]

"1. If it's hereditary and the people who possess it don't have children as you've claimed how is it passed on?"

I did not claim that gays do not have children. Many do.

I also did not say that the gay gene, if it exists, is passed on. The way I think DNA works is that it is comprised of many switches that turn genes on or off and that would include turning on or off gay tendencies.

I think you 2nd point is answered above.

You are correct in that gays can have just as productive a life as those who are not.

"being gay is no more undesirable"

When I form a conclusion as I have done here, I try to think of the many and the few.

If we are many, then being gay or not does not really matter so the condition I would call benign and not worthy of thought.

If we were on an island with gayness taking over a population, then it would be disastrous.

That is why I call it a condition.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:45 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:It does no harm as a minority condition but if it ever became the majority we might go extinct. You seem to be trying to get me to say that being gay is good and I cannot say that it is as compared to being straight.
Regards
DL

How would it become a majority condition exactly? You mean if more of the people you claim inherited this "condition" passed it on by having children then it would become a threat to the population because......the "condition" stops them having children? It's an absurd premise. If they are passing it on then they are having children, so how is that a threat to the population? The fact they don't have children proves it's unlikely to hereditary in the way you're suggesting. It's either or, you can't have it both ways, either being gay prohibits having children in which case your hereditary gene theory seems unlikely, or they are having children and passing on this "gene" in which case being gay would demonstrably not be a threat to the population. Which is it?

You still have no evidence that homosexuality is genetic,research however has produced evidence that it is an evolutionary mechanism to reduce conflicts for mates in populations where one gender outnumbers the other.

I'm not trying to get you to say anything, merely hoping you'll grasp that your claim is demonstrably wrong.

Stop making absurd statement based on what I have not said.

Nowhere have I said that gays cannot reproduce and nowhere have I said that the gay gene is passed on although some claim that it can be. Even if it was, if the subatomic particles that effects DNA were to hit the right switch then nothing would prevent a gay person from switching to a straight one. The reverse has been seen to happen when a husband of 20 + years decides to go gay.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:46 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:There can be no other options unless gayness pops up out of nowhere. This is a firm logic trail.

Regards
DL

This is in fact a well known logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Pfft. Deflection.

Regards
DL[/quote]

How is it deflection, you made a claim based on not knowing something? Just because you claim you can't think of another explanation outside of your two arbitrary choices doesn't make them valid. This is logically fallacious reasoning, I'm sorry you can't see this but that is argumentum ad ignorantiam. If you disagree at least present an argument or explanation, instead of a one word playground taunt.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 06, 2015 4:57 pm

Greatest I am wrote:nowhere have I said that the gay gene is passed on

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Really?

by Greatest I am Today at 3:04 pm wrote:"Either an unexpressed gay gene is passed down"
Regards
DL

It's on this page??? I think you've even confounded yourself now.

by Sponsored content